He was neither. He suffers from: Autism Spectrum Disorder – which is a biological and neurological disorder. Furthermore: All of the evidence directly relative to the specific alleged incident at-issue was clearly exculpatory, and subsequently was withheld from the jury.

My son, Aaron was incarcerated for over two years before going to his sham: Show-Trial, as his Public Defender filed continuance after continuance. My son had made a conscious decision NOT to waive his Rule 600 [Right to Speedy Trial].

He is presently being held at SCI Waymart. He is emaciated due to his severe digestive disorders. He is very over-medicated and suffering the life-threatening side effects of that medication, and resembles a typical inmate held at a Nazi Concentration Camp - or recently, such a camp in the former Yugoslavia.

He has been sexually assaulted, beaten, and tortured [with electricity]. This had occurred at various State Correctional Institutions in Pennsylvania. He has been held at five State Correctional Institutions, plus the depraved Monroe County Correctional Facility -- which has rightfully earned a reputation for sexual abuse by the guards, as well as far too many other indiscretions to begin addressing right now.

It is my understanding that you have joined: US Senator Webb [from Virginia] in addressing the appalling rate of imprisonment in our country. This high rate is definitely not due to any overwhelming rate of actual criminal activity, except, of course, by members of the judiciary, et al -- as has been clearly demonstrated by the outrageous and well-covered incident which finally had been identified in Luzerne County regarding the atrocities which were committed by: Judges Ciavarella and Conahan.

If a preliminary investigation was ever dared to be carried out in other counties – specifically in Monroe, Lackawanna, Schuylkill, and Carbon – there would be no doubt, whatsoever, that many other violations of the law are regularly being committed by: The Police … District Justices, District Attorneys and their cohorts in-crime [the Public Defenders], as well as the County Judges.

Some information about this situation may be gleaned by reading the documents which I had diligently shared with The Federal Court [Ref: 03: 06 CV 2474 ... 03: 07 CV 2031 ... 03: 08 CV 0445] … as well as the entire folder of documentation docketed with:

Further: On Thursday, April 23, 2009 - I was an eye-witness to an appalling and abominable incident that occurred within The Carbon County Courthouse, where a five-foot, two-inch tall, 120 pound medically fragile woman was assaulted by the deputies, dragged down the hallway and put up against the wall, and threatened with being “cited”.

She was then dragged back down the hallway past the many people who were standing [or sitting] along the walls of the corridor, and forcibly pushed down the stairs toward The Sheriff's Office. She was cited for: “Disorderly Conduct” - subtly taken to a District Justice in Jim Thorpe … who ordered her to prison and set her bail at a whopping $US 20,000.00.

The woman in this instance had not done anything at all. She was quietly standing in the hallway, as were all the rest of us. However, she just happens to be the wife of: Thomas P. Senavitis - the man who has been maliciously accused of causing the accident which took the life of PA Senator James Rhoades.

All of the evidence in the aforementioned case clearly reveals that: Mr. Senavitis is completely innocent of the charges fabricated against him, that he definitely had not left his lane of traffic – meaning, it was Senator Rhoades who was [partly] responsible for causing the accident.

[Partly] - because for some conjecturable reason/s the authorities had been omitting the critical involvement of a third vehicle, driven by a young Argentinean woman - who was evidently responsible for setting-up the conditions that resulted in the violent collision which ultimately resulted in Senator Rhoades’ loss of his life.

Having no evidence to proceed with a legitimate prosecution, and so much prima facie evidence to totally exonerate Mr. Senavitis, both of the PA counties involved: Monroe and Carbon County [possibly at the request of Christopher Hobbs, Esq., a Schuylkill County Public Defender and Senator Rhoades’ son-in-law] knowingly and willfully had used their positions-of-authority to maliciously commit legal abuse and character assassination against the entire law-abiding Senavitis Family.

¿¿¿Where was Mrs. Senavitis’ Public Defender while she was being accosted by the deputies at The Carbon County Courthouse on Thursday, the 23rd of April, 2009??? He had conveniently disappeared.

Senator Specter: We have too many serious problems within our Commonwealth, as well as throughout our entire country. No doubt you must already be fully aware of this fact. It is especially disheartening that these serious problems we now encounter … some being addressed, herein - had been caused by the unethical and criminal acts of selfish political and judicial leaders. It is high time this appalling situation becomes seriously addressed and rectified, rather than covered up by the “good ole boy buddy system”.

Further: The Pennsylvania prisons are over-crowded, and too many inmates are being deprived of a nutritious diet, as well as appropriate medical care. These inmates have been reduced to abject poverty, are physically and psychologically abused by the prison environment, and are evidently being denied their Civil and Human Rights. Additionally, we have an overwhelming rate of:

While I have your attention: I am compelled to bring to your attention that this morning at The Schuylkill County Courthouse in Pottsville, PA - Opening Statements are scheduled in: “Commonwealth v- Piekarsky and Donchak” – two American teenagers who are being maliciously indicted for the death of a fugitive and pedophile [who had impregnated a 14/15-year-old child] … a case where the prime focus has been placed upon this perverted criminal who was illegally residing in Schuylkill County, PA.

Finally: Please do whatever you can to come to the aid of my innocent, gentle, abused, indigent autistic son - and to secure his immediate release from the custody of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -- while he remains alive. It should go without saying here - that one would now expect you to promptly incite a full-fledged Federal Inquiry into the unforgiving facts which I had just briefly outlined, herein.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

From Muncy prison (Inmate #OP5372) Claudia Montelione has requested that corrections and clarification amend Gene Wrona's account of how she, her daughter, Kevin Mahoney and Eugene Wrona were adjudicated to confinement and on-going costly defenses of absurd accusations that were lodged against them by members of the Pennsylvania BAR Association and its Judiciary. Claudia's requested corrections and clarifications have been added in red font. Eugene Wrona's account remains unchanged in italics.

Hello to All from Dauphin County (PA) Prison; Inmate #75041.October 22, 2009

This humble scribe, Claudia, her daughter Francesca, and an innocent bystander, Kevin Mahoney, have all incurred the wrath of this Commonwealth because Claudia refused to waive her right to due process of Law and other rights before the evil tyrants operating under color of law in Harrisburg, PA, the State Capitol.

At the beginning of this saga, in October of 2007, Claudia, Francesca and Kevin were notary public officers, two commissioned in PA, while Kevin was commissioned in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It began with an innocent looking demand sent to Claudia from the Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP), an agency under the office of Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. His agent, Kathryn H Silcox, an attorney for BCP, demanded that Claudia turn over all her business and notary records for an “investigation” by BCP.

Claudia and Francesca operate(d) a small desktop publishing business, The Penny Pincher Press, in addition to their notary practices.

Claudia responded to Silcox that she would (be happy to) provide the information demanded if BCP would inform her of a complaint and identify the complainant, i.e., comply with her rights to know the nature and cause of the “investigation” by the BCP. She wanted to know if the action was civil or criminal, and whether it was against PPP or against her services as a notary. She has the right to face her accuser, while BCP lacks authority to investigate any business without a formal complaint by a “consumer”.

The Secretary of State issues all commissions to notary publics, so BCP lacks any authority whatsoever to pry into those operations.

Silcox refused to provide fundamental “due process” notice to Claudia and insisted that she has the right to investigate under the Administrative Code of the Commonwealth (also “com.”), which is found in Title 71 of Pa. Statutes. [71 P.S. § 741.951(a)]

Claudia again responded that she has the right to know her accuser and to be informed of any complaints/charges against her. Claudia agreed to comply with BCP demands upon receiving this information.

Silcox, learned in the Law, responded by serving a subpoena on Claudia in Scranton, Lackawanna County, PA. Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure 234.1 prohibits issuing subpoenas without court approval (an order), and a subpoena “may not be used to compel a person to appear or to produce documents or things ex parte before an attorney, a party or a representative of the party.”

Undeterred by the Rules of Court, BCP (Silcox) determined that the Rules do not apply to government agents or agencies, relying on the Administrative Code to overturn Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (supremacy clause) to achieve its ignoble objectives. BCP knew, and Claudia did not, the investigation of Claudia’s records was “criminal” in nature. The subpoena issued under color of Law by BCP attempted an unlawful search and seizure (4th Amendment) and deception to induce self-incrimination (5th Amendment) from Claudia.

Each of Claudia’s responses to BCP was sent “in honor” pursuant to UCC standards. On the other hand, BCP (Silcox) failed to conduct her business in “good faith”, thereby “dishonoring” the implied contract.

Next, BCP filed a motion to compel Claudia to comply with the subpoena. Silcox went “judge-shopping” in Dauphin County, despite Rules of Civil Procedure that dictates Venue in a Lackawanna County court, and Rule 1007 that states “An action may [only] be commenced by filing with the prothonotary (1) a praecipe for a writ of summons, or (2) a complaint.

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

A “Motion to Compel”“Motion for Sanctions” is neither a writ of summons nor a complaint.

Silcox found a sympathetic judge, Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., in Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (DCCCP).

At this point, BCP has failed to establish jurisdiction in Dauphin County. Nevertheless, DCCCP ordered Claudia to appear before Lawrence Clark, Jr. on March 4, 2008. In a collateral action, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State ordered her to appear on March 10, 2008, for a review of her practices as a notary public. The Secretary found no evidence of wrong-doing in her notary function. The hearing was to determine if she was engaged in the “unauthorized practice of Law” - alleged to be criminal behavior.

On March 4, 2008, Claudia made a special appearance in DCCCP to raise the question of jurisdiction of that court. She was accompanied by Eugene Wrona as “assistance of counsel” pursuant to the U. S. Constitution Amendment VI, and Pennsylvania Colonial Law, incorporated under 1 Pa.C.S.A. §1503, to wit, The Frame of Government of 1682.

Judge Clark would hear none of this and as his first business, he discharged Wrona, your scribe, from the Well. Claudia stood alone to face the court (Clark), BCP [Michael Gerdes replaced Silcox] in an effort to learn the nature and cause of the action against her.

Clark ignored her requests/demands for due process and her rights under the U.S. Constitution. He did not inform her that the action against her was “criminal” in nature. He also failed to require Plaintiff to establish jurisdiction in DCCCP.

Settled Law holds that when a court proceeds without jurisdiction, any judicial action is void ab initio. Further, in all criminal proceedings, a defendant must be afforded a trial by jury (U.S. Constitution Article III and Amendment VI) and the assistance of counsel (Amendment VI). Judge Clark disregarded his oath of office to violate the civil and constitutional rights of Claudia Montelione on March 4, 2008. Also when he discharged the “assistance of counsel”, settled Law holds that he forfeited any jurisdiction that may have been vested in DCCCP. Every action by Clark in the matter became void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction.

Claudia was ordered to comply with the BCP subpoena within 10 days or be held in “Contempt of Court”. This was a final order from which Claudia had the right of appeal within 30 days [Pa Constitution, Article V § 9]. Her right of appeal was interrupted by an order, void ab initio, to appear for contempt hearing in Dauphin County. Knowing the D.C. court did not intend to administer lawful justice, Claudia relied on her training as a law merchant and closed the case commercially by tendering a payment instrument to the court under a pre-arrangement with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The payment was witnessed by Massachusetts Notary Public Kevin Mahoney. Her “Bonded Promissory Note” (BPN) bonded the action instead of allowing Dauphin County to bond the case. With apparent contempt for commercial law and disregard of 28 U.S.C. § 2041 which requires the payment to be forwarded to the Department of Treasury, Judge Clark called the instrument “bogus” and when Claudia failed to appear for the March 28, 2008 hearing due to closure of the case, a Bench Warrant for her arrest was issued. She was taken into custody the very next day and brought to Dauphin County Prison (DCP).

To this point, Claudia was not yet informed that the “complaint” being “investigated” was for unauthorized practice of Law, a misdemeanor. However, charges of Retaliation against a prosecutor or judicial official under § 4953.1 of the Pa Criminal Code were brought against Claudia. Somehow, the instrument issued to peaceably settle and close the case was called a “judgment”.

When she failed to appear, a Bench Warrant for her arrest was issued, and she was taken into custody and brought back to Dauphin County on March 29, 2008.

To this point, Claudia was not yet informed that the “complaint” being “investigated” was for unauthorized practice of Law, a misdemeanor.

The March 10, 2008, hearing by the Secretary of State concluded in Claudia’s favor. Nevertheless, Douglas Cassel, attorney for the Secretary told the court that the Secretary wanted to “send a message” to others regarding the practices of notaries public in which Claudia engaged, despite the fact that she provided only such notary services as identified with her commission and or authorized under the UCC, and were enumerated on the State’s website.

When Claudia was incarcerated on 29 March, 2009, she had been deprived of notice (due process) by BCP, had not been advised of her rights under the 5th Amendment, and had been ordered to appear in a foreign jurisdiction to face charges without a complaint, depriving her of due process and equal protection of Law. And let us not forget the subpoena issued under color of Law.

Is it right for a government agency to abuse its authority? Even if the target of the investigation is guilty, does the End justify the Means? Can the government DENY a person due process?

Here, the alleged “crime” is a misdemeanor for which BCP trampled on Claudia’s rights and TRASHED the U.S. CONSTITUTION. For Shame!

So what did the court, Judge Clark, do? First, he deprived the accused of assistance of counsel, compelling her to proceed pro se against unknown charges, then further excusing Kathryn Silcox from appearing for BCP. Claudia could not even face her protagonist. Next, he refuses Claudia’s demand (under due process) to learn the nature and causes of the action, whether civil or criminal, among others, and entered “non-entertaining orders”, his language, to deny several motions, petitions and/or judicial notice actions of defendant. His demeanor and language, replete with threats, disparaged and disrespected this intelligent and competent woman, untrained in the law from exercising rights secured to every American Citizen through the Bill of Rights. Pennsylvania also protects these rights in its Constitution and statutes. Clark violated his Oath of Office to “war with the U.S. Constitution”.

Clark’s Order compelling Claudia to comply with the BCP subpoena is unenforceable as being void ab initio. As a matter of Law and due process, every subsequent action by the court, Commonwealth, BCP, Pennsylvania State Police, their agents et al, is taken under color of law, which is, without any law to support the action or enforcement.

Claudia’s daughter, Francesca, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court to obtain the release of her mother from this oppressive incarceration in Dauphin County. Federal district judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed the writ arguing that “daughter and best friend lacks standing to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a legal doctrine dating to the Magna Carta. Is Rambo correct? Or, was she “playing ball” with Dauphin County?

Francesca attempted other means to get her mother out of jail, including serving an administrative demand for release from illegal incarceration upon A.G. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and DCP Warden Dominick DeRose. The Respondents were duty-bound to answer the affidavit in a private process witnessed by notary public Kevin Mahoney. For her efforts taken on behalf of her mother, the Attorney General sent his attack dogs, the Special Investigation Division of the Pennsylvania State Police, to wit, Trooper Denny L. Grimm, to file criminal charges against Claudia, Francesca and a Massachusetts notary public, Kevin Mahoney. The “Retaliation” charge was extended to Francesca and Kevin and collateral charges of three counts of Conspiracy (§ 903) were added. The victims named are Corbett, Clark and DeRose. However, the Commonwealth neglects to note that a prison warden is not included as an officer protected under § 4953.1. It proceeded to prosecute Claudia through Dauphin County D.A. Ed Marsico and Deputy D.A. Jenni Henley Allen in a trial separate from her “co-conspirators”, Francesca and Kevin. This makes it easier to limit evidence, etc. . . . at the same trial, thereby supporting the contention that the Commonwealth was not seeking justice, equality under the law.

Francesca attempted other means to get her mother out of jail, including filing a Bonded Promissory Note that bonds the action instead of allowing Dauphin County to bond the case. For her efforts, taken on behalf of her mother, the Attorney General sent his attack dogs, the Special Investigation Division of the Pennsylvania State Police, to wit, Trooper Denny L. Grimm, to file criminal charges against Claudia, Francesca and a Massachusetts notary public, Kevin Mahoney. The charges include filing false “bogus” financial documents, later withdrawn and from them, charges of Retaliation against a prosecutor or judicial officer under § 4953.1 of the PA Criminal Code. Collateral charges of three counts of Conspiracy (§ 903) were added. Named as victims are AG Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and Dauphin County Prison (DCP) Warden Dominic DeRose.

The Commonwealth neglects to note that a prison warden is not included as an officer protected under this statute. It proceeded to prosecute Claudia for three counts each of Retaliation and Conspiracy through Dauphin County DA Ed Marsico and Deputy DA Jenni Henley Allen.

Francesca Montelione and Kevin Mahoney face similar charges. It appears that the Commonwealth has decided on separate trials, which makes it easier to limit evidence for the defense and limits exculpatory testimony that may persuade a single jury if it heard all three defendants at the same trial.

Claudia was brought to trial on July 28, 2009 to face six criminal charges. Apparently, Trooper Grimm learned that the BPN was bona fide and not “bogus” as his Affidavit of Probable Cause” states. Since it appears that this document is instrumental to the charges of Retaliation, one must ask “What is the basis for the criminal charges?”

The State brought Claudia to trial allegedly for “retaliation” against the Attorney General a judge and the prison warden, each of whom are named. The Law requires that an accused MUST be afforded the opportunity to face ones accuser(s). Federal case law also states that a State may never be the victim of a crime because the State is a fiction, not a real person, and the accused is unable to face his/her accuser. Neither Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., nor Dominic DeRose testified.

Against Claudia, the State substituted two attorneys to testify for the prosecution against the defendant. One must assume that those attorneys appeared as an “expert witness” under Rules of Evidence. The DA through Deputy DA Jenni Henley Allen, neglected to inform the defense of these “expert” witnesses, thereby denying her rights to obtain experts to rebut the testimony. If these witnesses, whose testimony is relied upon by the prosecution, are not “expert witnesses”, their testimonies are inadmissible, either as Hearsay, or as testifying to “conclusions of Law”. Admitting their testimonies deprives the defendant of civil and constitutional rights - in addition to being denied “assistance of counsel”.

Doesn’t the judge have a fiduciary duty to protect the Constitutional Rights of defendants? Did Judge Charles Brown, Jr. perform his duties with fidelity to his Oath of Office? Was Claudia afforded due process and equal protection of Law? Did she have a fair trial?

On July 28, 2009, this scribe appeared at DCCCP intending to serve as “assistance of counsel” for Claudia pursuant to Amendment VI of the U.S Constitution and as provided under Pennsylvania Law in the Frame of Government of 1682, a document incorporated into Law as a prior Treaty and under 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1503 as Colonial Law.

Brown recognized Wrona pursuant to Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.A(4) according him a “full right to be heard according to Law” as a person legally interested in the proceeding. In this dialogue, Wrona did not represent Claudia. To the contrary he denied representing her but offered a compelling argument as to why he should be permitted to “assist” her as counsel pursuant to her rights under Amendment VI and the Frame of Government of 1682. Wrona read into the record the relevant clause from Colonial Law that supports and endorses this position. Brown ultimately appointed Wrona as “assistance of counsel” under the caveat that advice could only be offered during recesses or breaks from outside the “bar”.

Is that what the Framer’s intended as “assistance of counsel”?

Did William Penn agree that the assistance of a friend shall be offered to the court from the audience during recesses when he signed the Frame of Government of 1682?

During the dialogue between Judge Brown and Wrona, First Assistant DA Francis T. Chardo entered the sanctuary of the courtroom with deputy sheriffs. Chardo interrupted the dialogue to introduce himself and to announce that he was taking Wrona into custody (arresting him) for unauthorized practice of Law, claiming it was a “second offense”.

It may be that Chardo, who once ran for judge, is unfamiliar with Canon 3.A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as the federal and State Constitutions that prohibit being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. Detective Jerome P. Wood had twice earlier brought the same charge against Wrona, once in April, then after failure to prosecute on May 26, 2009, the same charge was brought which must be again dismissed under the Constitution. When fairly adjudicated, the score will be Wrona - 2; Dauphin County - 0. The arrest of Wrona is still a “first offense”.

Chardo’s criminal charge does not pass the “smile” test when held against Canon 3.A(4). The arrest of Wrona from the sanctuary of a courtroom exposes Chardo as a thug, unfit for office. Prior and subsequent charges for the same or related events are “counterfeit securities”, the filing of which are criminal acts as well as “Official Oppression”.

Does it appear that the courtroom confrontation with Chardo was “orchestrated” in advance? Was Judge Brown a conspirator with DA Chardo? Did DA Marsico have knowledge or approve of this arrest? Was Detective Wood in the courtroom?

Chardo’s efforts to harass, intimidate, coerce and oppress Wrona via multiple charges must be seen for what they are - action taken under color of law for unlawful purposes by persons, but for the office they hold, who would not be able to sniff at meeting the burden of proof for prima facie evidence.

After Chardo interrupted the dialogue between Judge Brown and Wrona, the judge permitted Wrona to address the court again. Brown appointed Wrona as “assistance of counsel” for Claudia with the conditions stated above. Subsequently, or shortly thereafter, Judge Brown told Chardo to do what he had to do. Wrona was belted and cuffed and physically removed from the courtroom, a State - Sanctioned Kidnapping.

Wrona was taken to a holding cell until paperwork was completed and then he was taken, by Detective Wood and an unidentified detective to the office of District Justice Joseph S. Solomon for a bail hearing.

Wood told Solomon that the DA wanted a $100,000.00 bail bond for a third class misdemeanor. Justice Solomon determined that Wrona was not a flight risk and Wrona was released on his Own Recognizance (ROR) with a minor special condition.

Wrona did not return to the courtroom to avoid violating the condition of bail.

Claudia’s trial went into the second day, when a jury found her guilty of all six charges without one “victim” appearing to testify against her.

Whatever happened to the Constitution, and the Oaths of Office of Judges, prosecutors and Law officers who swore to support and defend it? Would anyone care to see the “jury instructions” as issued by Brown to the jury? I would.

On September 12, 2009, Claudia was sentenced. DA Allen castigated her for her alleged crimes, adding BCP attorney Michael Gerdes as another victim. Allen condemned Claudia for showing “no remorse” for her conduct which most non-partisan people would agree was, standing up for the Constitutions; refusing to waive her Rights; exercising her Rights, etc.

DA Jenni Henley Allen showed no remorse for prosecuting Claudia in violation of her 6th Amendment Rights to face Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., and Warden Dominic DeRose. Allen showed no remorse for allowing state - paid attorneys to testify as witnesses contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Following sentencing, Wrona prepared a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Relief: Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto as “counsel” for Claudia under the 6th Amendment and the Frame of Government of 1682. He left for two weeks vacation, returning home at 10 PM on 30 September 2009. Wrona left home at 7 AM on 1 October 2009 for his Arraignment in Dauphin County. USPS held Wrona’s mail from September 15 to October 1, 2009. Wrona received NO MAIL after September 14, 2009 until after his next arrest on October 1, 2009 by DA Chardo during the Arraignment.

ARREST of Eugene Wrona

On 1 October 2009 Wrona appeared for Arraignment. After checking in I, [Gene Wrona] was accosted by DA Chardo who told the clerk; “I’ve got this one.” I did not recognize him at the time. He escorted me directly to the processing desk, produced my paperwork and told me that I was pleading “Not Guilty. Right?” and he wrote “Not Guilty” on the Arraignment form.

I told him that he cannot fill in the form for me and he responded with “Are you refusing to sign?” after which he said they had two Bench Warrants for my arrest. I asked “What for?” He said for leaving the country, violating conditions of bail. He did not present either Bench Warrant. I told him that I was not refusing to sign the Arraignment form and asked him for the paper and a pen, which he gave to me.

I briefly read over the form and scratched through his “Not Guilty” writing and began writing “Innocen ---“ when he ripped the pen from my hand and said to a different staff member “Refuses to sign.”

I then asked his name. He said, “That’s it! You’re gone and you’re not coming back.” I (later) learned his name from a deputy sheriff.

Again, I was arrested by Chardo within a courtroom. This time he alleged to have Bench Warrants which were not served, and which I had not seen. I learned later, after my brother, Reg, opened my mail that the warrants were issued for “criminal activity”, violating conditions of bail. The activity? Filing a “Notice of Appeal” for Claudia on 28 September 2009.

Chardo led me through the crowd and I was delivered over to deputies who put me in a holding cell after preliminary processing. My possessions were catalogued. I was of course handcuffed and belted.

When the paperwork arrived, already signed by Detective Wood for that date, another detective, unnamed, took me for a bail bond hearing.

Before going before the magistrate, I negotiated to put my briefcase in my car which was parked in the parking deck behind the courthouse. I was taken in handcuffs for that purpose. Leg irons were put on for my trip to District Justice Barbara Pianka, and not Joseph S. Solomon whose name was on the document.

The unnamed detective deposited me “alone” in a waiting room outside the magistrate’s courtroom. I estimate the time as being between 10 and 20 minutes. Neither the detective nor the “partner” were in the room with me. When I was finally brought before Pianka, it was apparent that ex parte communications had taken place.

Justice Pianka asked if I understood the charges. I answered that I had not even seen them and would like to read them. She permitted me to side-step in leg irons to the end of the counter to read the criminal complaint by Detective Wood, who was not present.

After reading the complaint I was again brought before the magistrate. She again asked if I understood the charges. I responded with a conditional “Yes” and began to ask a question. District Justice Pianka stated “Bail is set at $50,000.00. She banged the gavel, and left the courtroom. I asked if I would be permitted a phone call. I was directed to a phone, but could not reach my party, since it was a toll call, I presume.

During the entire court proceeding the prosecutor, unnamed detective, spoke not a word. There was no discussion or questions about risk of flight or other related bail issues. It is reasonable to conclude that the detective used his most persuasive manner to convince Pianka ex parte to set an excessive bail per demands of Chardo.

I was then taken for processing, fingerprints, photos, etc. and then transported to DCP (Dauphin County Prison) on Thursday, 1 October 2009 for my first ever overnight in jail.

Note 1: On 28 September 2009 I was in Munich, Germany, and did not file the Notice of Appeal.

Note 2: I was incarcerated in the Classification Unit [A Block] in DCP for 8 days. A Block inmates are not permitted pen/pencil or paper except to submit Inmate Request Forms. I first received a pad of paper and this pen on October 15, 2009, two weeks after my incarceration.Bail Issues

On 5 October 2009 I was “compelled” to meet with a public defender who “represented” me and about a dozen other inmates for a Live Video Rule 150 Bail Hearing where a judge and prosecutors in the courthouse dealt with a public defender and inmates in DCP. DA Chardo was among the prosecutors. He asked several times for my case to be moved up, presumably so he would not be detained. I had no knowledge of these proceedings and had never been served with the documents of my arrest, so I, and probably the public defender, were ignorant of the goals of the prosecutor and possibly the judge who I do not know. It may have been Judge Evans.

When I expressed my ignorance, the judge waived some papers in front of the camera, as if I should be familiar with them, and mentioned something about a Judge Turgeon being assigned to my case. The outcome of that Rule 150 hearing was two interlocutory orders for bail at $5,000.00 each, pending review by judge Turgeon.

On 5 October, 2009 my brother met with a Bail Bondsman, Costopoulis, to post $50,000.00 bail for my release. I was taken to the Records room in DCP to sign the paper(s). I did not recognize the date on one document and asked to read it. A staff member said that I would not be released even if I signed, that another $10,000.00 [cash?] was necessary, evidently the result of the AM Rule 150 hearing, to secure my release.

Interlocutory bail orders serve as a bar to obtaining bail.

On October 6, 2009 I was again cuffed and shackled and dragged to court where I appeared before Judge Jeannine Turgeon. I met there with another public defender for 5 - 10 minutes in preparation for a bail bond/bail revocation hearing. Apparently, the ROR bail I thought applied had been revoked and now Turgeon was following up on the interlocutory orders issued at the Live Video Rule 150 hearing of the day before.

Turgeon listened while a Deputy DA (I think Allen) spewed nonsense about my conduct, never addressing any “flight risk” issues, then asked the PD to answer. I had consented to his representation at this hearing because again, I had not seen any paperwork or been afforded time to digest the material. The PD did reasonably well, but I asked the court’s permission to correct some misstaments and to add other facts. Turgeon granted permission. As I was addressing the court, the PD requested permission to be excused. What does that say?

Ultimately, Turgeon asked me “What would it take” for me to not assist litigants. She asked if I was being paid, and from where I derived my income.

I answered that I was not paid by any “clients” for legal work, and told her the source of my income. It is clear that the “practice of Law” is not an issue. I mentioned something about my integrity that prevents me from not assisting others, or even saying that I would stop assisting those who ask for my help.

Turgeon then increased the bond on the two interlocutory orders from $5,000.00 each to $25,000.00 each. She also added special conditions for bail which do not comport with the Rules for Bail Bonds. (See Rule 525, 526 & 527). Turgeon also applied the “special conditions” to the $50,000.00 bail issued by District Justice Pianka on October 1, 2009.

Does the PA Constitution section that prohibits excessive bail mean anything? Should an unproven violation of a misrepresented Administrative statute 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524, demand $1000,000.00 bail with “special conditions”, while violations of the criminal code, Title 18, are frequently bonded for $10,000.00 or less? What is/are the “penal code” of Pennsylvania, and where is it found?

How does an inmate preserve his constitutional Right for “Equal Protection of the Law”? Do judges have a fiduciary duty to that end?

At this point, one might assume that Wrona could be released on bail for $100,000.00 and the special conditions added by Turgeon. Not So! My brother spoke with Costopoulis to arrange for bail and was told that the DA (possibly Chardo) had added other conditions, to wit, if any charges are brought against Dauphin County, Wrona forfeits $100,000.00. Costopoulis would not post bail under those conditions.

My brother contacted another Bail Bondsman and drove to DCP to arrange bail. After arriving at DCP he was told the same story with slightly more details. He understood the Bail Bondsman to say that the DA (Chardo) requires a $100,000.00 letter of credit which would be forfeited if Wrona files or causes to be filed any charges against Dauphin County.

Do we have a great government, or What?

Does this demand, in and of itself, not violate the Law as well as the Rights of a defendant? Does it not TRAMPLE on the U.S. Constitution?

While Wrona languishes in DCP, filing deadlines are tolling. Claudia also languishes in jail with no one “on her side” able to advance the issues for her appeal. It appears that the Commonwealth may achieve procedurally what it cannot achieve on the merits and under Law. The action(s) against Claudia are all “under color of Law” for lack of jurisdiction.

During this process, my brother engaged an attorney to get me released on bail. For professional reasons, I will not identify him. However, as you can tell by the results, he is ineffective. He met with me one time in DCP and took some of my documents, including an Affidavit I executed here in DCP. He promised to make copies of everything I gave him. I am still waiting . . . . He does not return phone calls to my brother and does not answer communications Faxed to his office. I am concerned that he has been threatened or intimidated by the DA, and that he violated attorney - client privilege by sharing information with the DA.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled for October 21, 2009 for the October 1, 2009 complaint. My brother and others planned to attend, and to bring a recording device to preserve the record. I asked the cell block counselor to confirm the docket ad was told that the case was transferred to Judge Turgeon in DCCCP. I scurried to inform my brother, lawyer and others that the hearing was cancelled - based on information of the counselor.

Surprise! At 7:15 AM on the 21st, a CO told me he was coming for me in a half hour. I was shackled and cuffed and let to a holding area for a Preliminary Hearing before District Judge Solomon at DCP.

Another Surprise! The attorney decided to stop by anyway so he was present to “represent” me. He remarked that he had “forgotten” his recorder and asked a court reporter if she would transcribe my Preliminary Hearing. The answer was “No”.

Justice Solomon found that Commonwealth established a prima facie case and bound the charge over to DCCCP. A dismissal of the charge would have resulted in a Windfall reduction of Bail by $50,000.00.

In the mean time. Chardo called the prisoner at DCP to offer a deal . In exchange for a guilty plea, Wrona would be released immediately and sentenced to parole (unspecified) and “extensive probation”. He made this offer on or about October 15, 2009. The offer was immediately declined and Chardo was informed that Wrona had an attorney in the matter.

The public should learn that parole and probation are “weapons” of the penal system to perpetuate recidivism. Jails appear to be populated by inmates for parole or probation violations as much as for criminal conduct. Once you are “in the system”, the long arm of the penal system will try to keep you there and bring you back. A DUI could be used to incarcerate a parolee.

Summary

Claudia Montelioe has been incarcerated for more than 18 months as a result of exercising her constitutionally protected Rights. She was persecuted by BCP and the Attorney General of PA and prosecuted in Dauphin County without ever establishing jurisdiction in that county. Claudia, her daughter Francesca, and Kevin Mahoney are each accused of fabricated crimes that never occurred. The alleged “victims” did not testify at Claudia’s trial, yet she was convicted. The DA knowingly and intentionally violated Claudia’s Rights and the Rights of Francesca and Kevin to prosecute these absurd and frivolous charges. The court, magisterial and common pleas, enabled these false prosecutions by failing to hold the prosecutors to the letter of the Law, the U.S. Constitution and their Oaths of Office, judges included.

For offering legal assistance to Claudia, Eugene Wrona became a target of a corrupt legal system. On at least four separate occasions, criminal charges were brought against him for violating the “penal code” of Pennsylvania. Prosecutors have not yet defined “penal code” and other terms for the offense charged.

Commonwealth failed to prosecute the first charge and re-filed it, violating the Constitution prohibiting double jeopardy. The third charge is bogus, see Canon 3.A(4) of CIC. The last charge is to cover-up a false arrest.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Claudia and Francesca Montelione

Pennsylvanians have a right to know of Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lawrence F. Clark’s use of state resources in pursuing his personal litigation against Claudia Monetelione, her daughter, Francesca S. Montelione and the Recorder of Deeds of Luzerne County. The matter arose when Francesca, who held Power of Attorney for her mother while Claudia was illegally incarcerated in Dauphin County Prison, recorded an Affidavit at the courthouse in Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County. The Affidavit demanded that the Respondents, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Judge Lawrence F. Clark and Warden Dominick DeRose either show how their imprisonment of Claudia did not violate the federal criminal code and Pennsylvania statutes or release her. Without any of the Respondents answering the Affidavit, thus indicating their agreement with its claims, Judge Clark took exception to the public filing of the Affidavit. He sued to have it removed using state paid attorneys and more than likely, public resources for all of the administrative services necessary in pressing litigation: Preparation and typing of documents; making copies; mailing expenses, etc.

Notice in the following Luzerne County Civil Division "DISPOSITION" that the date Case No. 11530-2008 (Clark, Jr. and Pierantoni, III vs. Montelione, et al) was tried before the Honorable Ann Lokuta is memoralized as the "15th day of September 2008". So; How can it be that this "DISPOSITION" document for 0115302008 (page) 0009 is bar-code recorded as being filed with the Prothonotary on 9/11/2008 at 2:40:09 PM?

How can Pennsylvanians expect “honest services” from judges and public officials who have the moral sense of a reptile and how can we afford to pay the salaries and pensions of such in these hard economic times?A return to the “Rule of Law”, “Due Process” and ethics at all levels of government (and its judiciary) is desperately needed.

Lord Christopher Monckton gives US a prophet's warning

Monday, November 2, 2009

Bob Hurt on "Immunity"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Bob Hurt2460 Persian Drive #70Clearwater, FL 33763+1 (727) 669-5511Donate to my Law Scholarship fundLearn civil litigation with JurisdictionarySubscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREEDownload Files FREE from the Lawmen ArchiveImprove your financial fortunes with GetZooks!Save Fuel-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904; 6 L. Ed. 24, (1824), the Court stated, in part: "The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty; exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter."

"Governments lose their immunity and descend to level of private corporations when involved in commercial activity enforcing negotiable instruments, as in fines, penalties, assessments, bails, taxes, the remedy lies in the hand of the state and its municipalities seeking remedy." Rio Grande v. Darke, 167 P. 241.

Other cases:

"The rule of governmental immunity as to all political subdivisions of government is hereby abrogated as it has heretofore been abrogated as to municipal corporations, i.e., cities. No longer is the defense of governmental immunity for tort liability available, irrespective of whether the involved political subdivision is functioning 'governmentally' or 'proprietarily'." MYERS v GENESSEE COUNTY , 375 Mich 1, 1965.

"The principal of sovereign immunity is not one which allows the sovereign to continue to inflict injury.... [sovereign immunity] does not give the sovereign the right to totally disregard the effect of it's actions upon the public." Shaw v. Salt Lake County , 224 P2d 1037.

"Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue." Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 (1960).

"The general rule is that a qualified immunity defense fails once a plaintiff has alleged that defendants have violated the plaintiff's clearly established rights. Occasionally, however, objectively "extraordinary circumstances" are present which combine to justify a grant of immunity nonetheless." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982).

"The adversarial system ensures the best presentation of arguments and theories because each party is motivated to succeed. Moreover, the adversarial system attempts to ensure that an active judge refrain from allowing a preliminary understanding of the issues to improperly influence the final decision. This allows the judiciary to keep an open mind until the proofs and arguments have been adequately submitted. In spite of these underlying concerns, the majority today claims that the benefits of full briefing are simply a formality that can be discarded without care. The majority fails to comprehend how the skilled advocates in this case could have added anything insightful in the debate over the proper interpretation of a century's worth of precedent. Whatever its motivation, the majority undermines the foundations of our adversarial system."

In Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc , criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction.

Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349.

"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter andperson, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davisv. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A.Ariz. 1974)

There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. O'Conner,99 F.2d 133

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision madein good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

"No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21Howard 506 (1859).

"The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act." Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227F 417.

"The constitution of the Union constitutes a contract with the members and is the measure of the authority conferred upon the organization to expel or otherwise discipline them.' [Citing cases]; Accord: Leo v. Local Union No. 612 of International Union of Operating Engineers, 26 Wn.2d 498, 174 P.2d 523 (1946).

"IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO DECLARE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS WRITTEN, AND NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE WRITTEN. J.W. Seavey Hop Corp. v. Pollock, 20 Wn.2d 337, 348-49, 147 P.2d 310 (1944), cited with approval in Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d at 669.

"It being impossible to obtain the remedy sought, the state and their agencies/municipalities being impotent to enforce their judgments/decrees and thus should not even exercise their otherwise ˜general" jurisdictions." Louisiana v. NAL, 106 La. 621. And;

"A law which restricts their power to render and enforce a judgment is therefore a limitation upon the exercise of jurisdiction; and a law which destroys or impairs the effect which their judgments without such law would have, is equally so." Fordyce v. Beecher, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 29, 31.

Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, and to the writers who write perverseness; to turn aside the needy from justice, and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!

What will you do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will you flee for help? and where will you leave your glory?